6:33 "You & I & David would probably agree. We support th first amendment in it PURITY. That a person can say terrible things in ths country but he has a right or she has a right to do it, becaus we believe thats th only way to protect everyone's right." THEY AGREE WITH THIS CONTITUTIONAL ISSUE. What issue? That EVERYONE's right, all rights, should be protected equally. Pickin apart any right,such as 1st or 4th amendment, to be IGNORED weakens all the other rights & thats whats happened for yrs!
Rand Paul is a douche.Just like his dad.And you morons that think Ron Paul is some "freedom fighter" are just so clueless its sad.Name ONE bill Ron has introduced or helped to push thru Congress in all the 11 terms he was a congressman-----Yeah,I'll wait.Good luck.
2:52 "Seems to sympathize with the goal of the segregation" "when asked if you support the BASIC work for which Martin Luther King fought & died" What a bunch deaf dumb shits! In both clips he made clear 0:21 "I like the civil rights act in the since that it ended discrimination in all public, ahh, domains & I'm all in favor of that." 0:39 "I abhor racism" HE LIKES THE END OF DISCRIMINATION, ABHORS RACISM? DOESNT SOUND LIKE A RACIST TO ME! Sounds like Race Leeches starting shit for politics.
This moron (the black one) is a dumb ass. "Rewrite supreme court rulings"? "Get closer to the mainstream"? Supreme court ruled in favor of slavery at one time you fucking moron! It had to be overturned. "Duh, I dont know. I guess if the supreme court says so we shouldnt ever rehash this issue. Duh." The MAJORITY of the 1964 civil rights law was absolutely necessary, but the government ultimately crossed the line. Taking advantage of the situation inorder to grab more power over personal property
Rand, like his father Ron, hates racism AND loves the constitution. Their position is a constitutional one, not a racist one. History shows foreign countries & certain northern states within the US achieved equal rights & treatment for blacks & other minorities long before the civil rights act of 1964. Up to 120 yrs ahead. To say equality would never have been achieved without it is stupid. And to say passing that law has already achieved equality is even more retarded! STOP RACIAL SENSITIVITY!
@shawso7 doesnt matter---the end result of Rand and Rons position is that private business owners who are RACIST would be able to deny people of color or anyone else they didnt like acess to their businesses. Sorry,but this is one reason why Libertarian ideas are such a gigantic FAIL.
this piece of shit is nuts let all companys do what they what like lead in paint no seat belts in cars no breaks for employees are you fucking kidding me those fucks that voted for him have no fucken brains
Well, Rand Paul's ploy worked; he appealed to the racists in saying he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act forcing whites to serve blacks.... and he got voted in.
So, unpopular viewpoint? Doesn't matter! If you have enough bigots in your state, you'll STILL get elected!
Matthews is lumping all Tea Partiers together like we are all just robots without minds of our own and without individual viewpoints. That low. For the record, I disagree with Rand Paul on this issue. But, he is not indicative of all Tea Partiers.
@rickschtick well then he & his father need to be more outspoken about this since he has no problem showing up at Tea Party rallies where the political leaders/faces of the Tea Party have been Palin & Michelle Bachmann,
by associating himself with them & their extreme views and ridiculous beliefs, you cant call Matthews out for lumping teabaggers together when the right has had no problem lumping liberals together and labeling them all socialists for supporting Obama's healthcare & such
I am white, I am not a racist. I am not disabled. I think that if I run a store and I do not want red, yellow, or black folks in there, it is my business. I want everyone in there. I am in business to make money, and I want all people to come in and enjoy my business and spend their money. That is just good business. Do I think government should involved. I do not.
fucking guy pisses me off, chirs matthews doesnt deserve to be on tv, i would love to see this guy directly against rand i love how hes putting rand down with out him even being there what a douche
I went to a Taco truck in my hood of East L.A. bout a month ago. They refused to sell to me.. latino only. It's a very latin neighborhood, and I was sort of put off by the whole thing... Like, "racist fucks... screw you guys". And I still do think that. BUT, they have the right to sell their products to whomever they want. It's their stupid taco truck and it's their food on the truck. IT'S THEIRS... NOT MINE. I don't get to tell them what to do with it. NOR THE GOV!
@sophiemarie49 MORON: the whole discussion is whether it should be against the law or not. My point is: the mexicans refused to sell to me and that SHOULD be their right. I don't give a shit what the law says... if I own something THEN I GET TO CHOOSE WHO, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, AND HOW I SELL IT. I OWN IT!!!! LET ME REPEAT THAT: I OWN IT. I'll sell my shit to whoever I fucking want. bottom line.
@sophiemarie49 : You're reading what I said the wrong way: I already said below that the discussion is what the law SHOULD be. My point about not caring what the law says simply meant: there's lots of laws that are BS and are not constitutionally sound. Like telling a person who they can and cannot sell their assets to. Just like in a restaurant that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
@freezazoid , the reason it is legal for a restaurant to have a sign about refusing service isn't to discriminate by race or sex. It is in consideration for the other patrons. If someone comes in to eat that has really bad b.o. or filthy clothes from working, the restaurant can refuse service, as it would make the other diners eating experience unpleasant. And the restaurant doesn't want to lose any customers. Almost universally the public doesn't want to eat with unpleasant smells around.
@sophiemarie49 : but you're missing the point: so who decides what is worthy of being "refused service".... So what if my military troupe had a tradition where we didn't wash our socks for weeks before war? what if it was a muslim and I felt strongly about christianity... could I refuse service to the muslim? What if I just felt lazy that day and didn't want to open my store? would that be against the law because i'd be refusing people of all races and religions? where do you draw the line?
@freezazoid , I'm sure there are rules on the books that limit it to bad public hygiene, intoxication or extremely loud behavior. They aren't allowed to refuse service on a whim or personal dislike.
As for not opening a store if you felt lazy, of course that is your perogative. You wouldn't be discriminating, since you wouldn't be serving anyone.
@sophiemarie49 : personally I don't think if some dumb ass refuses service to a black guy is really that big of a deal. Yes he's a racist idiot that will lose out on business. But I really don't think it should be against the law. I guess we just disagree.
@freezazoid , I don't know if you would disagree if you read your history. Before the Civil Rights Amendment, any business could discriminate. That included hospitals, doctors, ambulance services and pharmacies. It killed people, since time is of the essence when seriously ill or injured. Don't be fooled by racist people saying it wouldn't matter if businesses would discriminate, it would not only 'inconvenience' but humilate, divide and even kill.
@sophiemarie49 : you're living in a different area. Try to find me a hospital with only white employees let alone one that would ever turn someone down due to their race. Even besides the law, you have to be joking if you think a hospital would ever turn down someone because of race. You live in a different era. What if 100 racist doctors started businesses? there's still the same ammount of non racist doctors. So it doesn't hurt, if anything it helps because they do accept some people.
@freezazoid , there are plenty of areas in our country where there is only one small hospital, so if that hospital were allowed to discriminate, it could kill. Before the CRA people of color did die because they were turned away by hospitals, ambulance services, doctors and pharmacies.
The reason things are better now is because of the Civil Rights Act.
A doctor pledges to preserve human life, so the very idea of being racist disqualifies them from taking that pledge.
@sophiemarie49 : the racist hospital would never survive... a non racist hosp. would come into the area and get just as much business or more from not being racist... there's money to be made.. simple economics. Besides that, my main point is: you can't force people to love, force people to not hate. I believe in freedom you believe in force. And on top of that, force normally doesn't work. Economics works itself out. You're not only naive, you think force is the answer... too bad really.
@freezazoid , most areas that could support two hospitals would already have one. New hospitals wouldn't just pop up.
No one is talking about forcing people to love or hate, simply to respect everyone as your equals.
Economics doesn't just 'work itself out', Without regs. the greediest end of screwing a lot of good people, and eventually things get so bad the country fails. Read your history!
@sophiemarie49 : I have read my history: Historically the free-est times are also the most prosperous: Like america becoming the worlds economic leader in the 1800's and early 1900's. Modern day japan. Modern day china who are economically very free and have become a world powerhouse. I think YOU need to read your history.
2nd: if there's black people being refused at a hospital, that leaves incentive for a nonracist doctor to want to move into the area... because there's money to be made! DUH
@freezazoid, comparing China's prosperity to their lack of regs. discounts the enormous harm done to their environment and thus their people. I know people who have travelled there over the last 20 years. They tell me the cities are so polluted it is difficult to breathe. Weak regulations just passes the true costs to others whether it is a family who loses their breadwinner or a child from contaminated milk. Look at their lax regs...cont.
@freezazoid , your example of a racist hospital leaving opportunity for a non-racist hospital to open misses completely the harm done to those who needed a hospital but were denied service. Larger number of dead and permanent injuries until and if a non-racist hospital opened or a further distant hospital was reached is too great a price.
@sophiemarie49 : my point many comments below is actually really good: So what if I just decided to close down for the day and refuse service to everyone? I'd be discriminating against ALL races and religions!!! No one gets service... but if I were to do it JUST based upon race that's suddenly against the law? Point is: shutting down racist business' entirely is like them taking the day off forever... so now we don't have that business at ALL and it leaves no competition for the other guy
@freezazoid , and how that allowed schools to have 2nd, 3rd stories added to a building only designed to be one floor. And then the disaster when a earthquake leveled those schools.
Little or no regulation isn't civilized, it isn't protecting the people which is a government's sworn duty to do. Enemies aren't just invading armies but greedy business owners who will put profit before the safety of their workers and their customers.
@sophiemarie49 : please! the government is no smarter... if anything less smarter than any private company who could lose clients to competition. The FDA constantly releases drugs that are dangerous... good example: viagra was released and FDA approved for some other condition that it did nothing for. When the company tried to recall the drugs because they didn't work, they found people not sending them back because they could F all night long! The gov has a long list of fuck ups!
@freezazoid , your remark that the government isn't smarter than private business, since the company wouldn't want to lose clients is misguided. In reality, the business doesn't want to lose customers so frequently withholds the harm their product is doing.
Think of the cigarette companies lying about their products causing cancer. More recently, think of the many drug companies that hid proof their drugs injured consumers. The rational of these execs is simple, make the money and run.
@freezazoid , I do think the FDA needs to improve its results. All drugs should have independent lab studies, longer human studies, before it is okayed for use.
@sophiemarie49 : that's part of the problem too though: the fda takes way too long on certain drugs that are available in other countries already and working!! Without an FDA you'd think it would be disasterous! but it's not.... Companies would disapear in a second if they released a bad drug.... lawsuits and loss of trust would put them under. Besides that: just be wary of new drugs... let the risk takers test them out. The FDA is unnecessary.
@freezazoid , I don't know why you think companies would disappear in a second if they released a bad drug, this happens all the time and the companies go on.
I do agree that Europe has drugs for many years before they get approval here. I don't think it is that our FDA is slow as much as our pharma companies aren't interested in marketing what they don't have a patent for.
I'm glad that our govt. is going to review which drugs/treatments actually work best so our docs can prescribe winners.
@sophiemarie49 : but why the gov. do the reviewing? do they have special powers that a private reviewing company couldn't do. Consumer Reports although it does not review drugs of course has a fantastic rep to uphold.... If a business like that were to review drugs they'd have everything to lose if they messed up... do you really think the FDA cares if they mess up? sure they don't want it... but they're a forced monopoly... they wont go down if there's a mess up. a priv. reviewer would.
@freezazoid , the only way Consumer Reports is funded is by its members who want to know the best washer, car, etc.
Do you really expect the consumer to pay a private company to review drugs? And in your scenario if they make a bad call, get sued and go out of business, there very well may be no other company to step in and take there place. Then big pharma has no check on their product, in your scenario.
Plus, idea is to not let the bad ones on the market in the first place.
@sophiemarie49 : your argument is: The consumer is willing to pay for reviews on dishwashers but not willing to pay for reviews on drugs they put in their bodies? I don't really get your point there. 2nd: making a bad call and going out of business is a threat the FDA DOESN'T have to deal with. Private companies would take more care to not make mistakes so they DON'T loose their business. The FDA can make many mistakes and nothing will happen. After all my good points you STILL don't get it.
@freezazoid , my argument is saying consumers don't have enough money to pay for an independent review on everything they buy. Take the subject of prescription drugs, many of them are for 'orphan' diseases, meaning very few people have them.
The consumer reports for drugs would never have the money to research every drug, they would only do the most popular, just like the real Consumer Reports only checks out the most popular manufactured goods.
@freezazoid , and you point about a business making a bad call and going out of business, that doesn't much happen in the real world.
The same people just start up another business under a different name. It happens all the time to small companies who are sued.
When the FDA makes mistakes, people there lose their jobs or are demoted, just like at most companies. For the large amount they have oversight on, they do a pretty good job. Yes, they could do better, just like all of us.
(continued) so according to you: when a business fails they somehow don't learn their lesson and have an endless supply of money to start more crazy companies to screw people over? Is that right? Because business' after they fail generally have lots of debt and legal troubles! Private business' aren't in the market to fail... they want to make money, and doing a damn good job gets them money. FDA gets the money anyway. Understand?
@sophiemarie49 : So when the FDA makes a big mistake, maybe someone will get fired? WOW big deal. And after that the FDA does business as usual. "Topps Meat" recently went out of business from an e. coli spread... If the same owner goes back into business do you think he's going to try harder? YES! he's going to try and avoid dealing with legal hassle and financial hassle that he had to go through the first time... (continued below)
@freezazoid , look at how many harmful prescription drugs were sold but no pharma company went out of business. Did the tobacco companies go out of business when the courts found tobacco did kill people and the companies willfully withheld the evidence, and lied to the public? Of course they didn't.
These big corporations have very deep pockets.
The government is charged with protecting us, not just from foreign enemies but from greed and corruption.
@sophiemarie49 , people shouldn't have to be harmed or killed for a company to straighten up. The giant egg factory owner in the news lately, do you think that he didn't know that buildings ripe with bugs and rats would contaminate? He probably just decided to 'cut costs' by cutting employees and trash hauler costs to make more money.
Little or big, companies can have bosses or owners who are greedy enough to take shortcuts that people in danger. Govt. regs. make sure they will pay for it.
@sophiemarie49 : It's insane to think that: The government (who are just people) will do a better job than a private business.
The gov. has no threat of loosing their jobs or any other business competing with them, and you think they'll do a better job at a given task than a private company who DOES have a threat of job loss and competition? When did the gov. become such saints? you think the gov. can't be greedy? hahaha... I guess we just disagree my friend. Nice chatting with you.
@freezazoid , I would think it equally naive to assume that a private business will do a better job. There are so many news stories where the owner or manager tries to greedily squeeze more profits by not following safety measures(BP and the oil spll) or using contaminated ingredients(deliberately chemical-contaminated milk, even though the guilty parties know the death penalty is prevalent there) or cutting back on workers (filthy egg factories egg's sicken 1600 folks) cont.
@freezazoid , cont. sure govt. employees can take bribes to let private companies do bad stuff but that is the exception. And each agency has an internal checking department.
Most employees don't want to chance losing their pension, so that is a strong deterrent for most.
You talk of the govt. as if it is one company, when it is a whole network of separately managed entities, some which are headed by presidential appointees, some not.
@sophiemarie49 : check out John Stossel's "Stupid in America". If you don't think government interference makes things worse after that... then I guess we just disagree at a really basic level.
I'm pro choice and pro freedom... you think that a group of people should make choices for us and not let us be free to choose. Check out stossel... seriously it's really good.
@freezazoid , as I've said before, Stossel isn't a journalist, he relies on anecdotal evidence.
I watched a little of his video but it had technical diff.
If you really are pro choice and pro freedom, you would support the Dems, not the Repubs. Repubs support big corporations, which just like the bad guy in 'It's a Wonderful Life', are interested in profits and limiting choices.
On the education problem in our country, I think it is less govt. influence, as we've had (cont.)
@freezazoid , we've had Dem and Rep. leaders the last 30 years that our education system has gone downhill, neither helped.
It is more the reliance on 'experts' that screw things up. The old way of teaching, memorization, rote learning was deemed too 'boring. But that is how you get good at stuff, doing it again and again, especially math, reading and writing.
I kid you not my kids were taught 3 different ways to multiply. Each was glossed over, leaving them confused. (cont.)
@freezazoid , (cont.) Their dad and I taught them the 'old-fashioned' way to multiply, memorizing the times table endlessly, then long multiplication and division the way it had been taught for decades. All three kids excelled in math after that.
Same problem with reading. Some schools gloss over phonetics and then a percentage of kids have trouble learning to read. My niece was almost one of their 'victims' who felt dumb at 6. A few hours of phonetics, and she 'got' it and her esteem soared.
@freezazoid , if a business decides to close down for a day, they simply make their customers wait until the next business day, as many do who close on Sundays.
Are you advocating that every business should never have a holiday?
No one is forcing a racist business to shut down. They can follow the rules or they can re-open as a club with memberships and stay racist.
Would you argue that we shouldn't shut down a business that breaks any laws? What if a business cheats customers repeatedly?
"you have the right to poop in other peoples porcelin bowl...what article\section was that in the constitution again? I have the right to make you pay for my doctor visits, my education, my home loan, my food bill, my retirement & my cellphone. God Bless the U.S.S.A." hehehe
I've tried to comment butit doesn't get through. I'll rephrase my question. Do bars that are for women, have the right to intimidate men who want to be there?
you have the right to poop in other peoples porcelin bowl...what article\section was that in the constitution again? I have the right to make you pay for my doctor visits, my education, my home loan, my food bill, my retirement & my cellphone. God Bless the U.S.S.A.
gun rights were core to the rule of law in this country. Without guns and the threat of the people defending themselves there is no way for the people to enforce the constitution and kep the government in check. The supreme court is the federal government. You mean the supreme court tends to support the overreach of the federal government?!? Perish the thought! The supreme courts job is to enforce the constitution, not interpret it and not legislate from the bench.
One of these yahoos mentioned the supreme court interpeting the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was written in english. Not Spanish. Not Russian. Not Chinese. It doesn't need to be interpeted. What it says is what it means.
Rand Paul is wrong to equate the rights of private business owners that serve the public with the right to free speech.
If a racist wants to pick and choose their customers they should just keep their business private and not serve the public.
Matthews makes a good point about the humiliation of being denied service because of color. It is asinine to think barring people because of color wouldn't be saying loud and clear that we aren't all equal. That is an un-American idea.
Rand Paul is not a racist watch the whole interview he is merely talking about private property rights watch the whole interview. Think about it if there is a lesbian club like in my college and i who am not only not a lesbian but not even a women want to join can they refuse my membership i think the answer is yes they can say i am not allowed. Rand Paul opposes all Jim Crow laws which was the Govt. segregating and he believe like Jackie Robinson in MLB the private sector will do whats right
@iamsean90 The problem is if someone is supporting Private Companies infringing on the Liberties of it's citizens but NOT the Government doing it. Also he didn't address public Monopoly businesses. Like the Privately Owned Telephone company or electric company.
@PoliticalSkeptic Uh im sorry to let you know this if you own a restaurant you have the right to refuse entry and service just like you have the right to refuse entry into your own home they are both private properly now i dont support refusing service based on race etc. but i have to recognize everyone's private property rights However ANY business or institution that receives ONE CENT of public money has no right to discriminate or decline service
@iamsean90, you are not understanding the difference between a private club and a private business that serves the public.
The lesbian club at your college is not open to serve the public. They are allowed to discriminate. Racists can legally start a private club that serves food, for instance, and bar blacks.
A private business like a restaurant, a gas station, a laundromat, a medical clinic etc. that serves the public is not allowed to discriminate.
@sophiemarie49 Look you dont understand basic principles Person A can refuse to sell or accept person B's money its that simple Private property is to be considered as a home the owner of that property can determine who may or not enter that property you do not have a right to service you can negotiate for it but in a free society goods an services can only be exchanged with willing and voluntary consent from both parties My main problem with these Rand Paul attacks is the sheer malice involved
@sophiemarie49 what.. what is your criteria for what businesses "serve the public" and which don't? You seem to be arbitrarily picking and choosing. You also seem to think that because something IS a certain way that it OUGHT to be that way, which is illogical.
@newexperiment, the legal criteria, not mine, is a business open to serving the general public, i.e. not requiring membership to enter.
The Civil Rights law is logical, because segregation harmed people. Racists like Rand always use the innocent restaurant scenario, knowing full well ambualance services, doctor's offices, pharmacies and even hospitals refused service. This killed Americans.
@sophiemarie49 Cars killed americans (not that dead americans are any more compelling dead other dead people) with accidents. Therefor make cars illegal? If you replace the 'racism' with 'x' you might see that your argument makes no sense.
@newexperiment, we have a ton of legislation to make driving safer, from testing to get a license, to laws on how to drive, such as speed limits, etc. The laws make it safe to drive, if everyone follows them, barring accidents cause by falling trees, tire or auto failure or driver failure, as in sudden illness. We don't say, oh, cars are still killing people, let's do away with all laws governing driving.
People are equal in this country. Racists who don't believe this can move.
@sophiemarie49 Please try to understand instead of resorting to straw-man arguments.. (it makes you look stupid =[ )
NO ONE thinks that people in the country are unequal or shouldn't have equal rights.. what we think is that you have no idea what a 'right' is.. if you were consistent in your 'rights' we wouldn't be surprised to hear you argue that "legal prostitutes should not be allowed to discriminate against age, race, weight, or size of penis".
@newexperiment , if people are truly equal here, they should be free to get services from any business open to the public. No one should have to be humiliated and turned away because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation.
Personally I don't think prostitution should be legal and it isn't legal in very many places, thank goodness. It does say something about you that your mind jumped to that subject when we are discussing equal rights....
@sophiemarie49 The places in the world with the least accidents have the least regulations... In fact all the statistics, even in the states, show that removing regulations, such as removing stop lights and/or stop signs, increasing speed limits, etc for an intersection has the effect of DECREASING accidents.
I know it all seems counter intuitive from inside your box, but there is an underlying theory that explains why legislation intended to improve X by restricting Y has an inverse effect.
@newexperiment, the idea that stop lights and/or stop signs cause accidents is crazy. And there is so much evidence that higher speeds cause fatalities.
I don't know where you do your research but perhaps the places with the least regs have the least accidents because they have a lot less cars and traffic?
I haven't insulted you or anyone else, why do you feel free to insult? I look at these comments sites as a place to learn and share ideas, not to denigrate other commenters.
@sophiemarie49 lol.. you insulted me indirectly.. hard to find more obvious examples than implying that I'm racist or that because I think prostitution should be legal it 'says something' about me.. lol. All your arguments are interesting for grade 7, but would not be accepted at any serious level... That you want prostitution to be illegal says enough about you that there's no point in arguing about freedom with you.
@newexperiment , no, but I do think that how you live your life is how you will be judged at the end of it, not if you went to church every Sunday, or belonged to the 'right' religion.
As for pornography, those guys I know who were into that, didn't seem to be able to think of women except as objects. And those that did mature and start to see women as people, stopped buying porn.
@sophiemarie49 You make a lot of claims jam-packed with pre-suppositions. Go watch thepeach's video on prostitution and pornography... Whatever you think you know, you don't. Not much else in the universe quite as clear as that.
@sophiemarie49 Sex is legal.. selling services is legal.. why shouldn't selling sex be legal? Cause it's yucky to your personal preference? Might as well fight gay and lesbian equality. I'm consistent, you aren't, you lose. There's nothing else to talk about...
@sophiemarie49 The point was that your point was unjustified. Then my point was that you missed the point. Now it's that it's beyond you. Can't be more forthcoming =(
". . .if there is a lesbian club like in my college and i who am not only not a lesbian but not even a women want to join can they refuse my membership . . ."
No they can't if your college receives even one dollar of federal funds. If they are a private club off campus they can refuse your memership.
@jfsfrnd Wrong if the Club itself receives public money than it shouldn't be exclusionary College students like all Americans have freedom of association but this debate is irrelevant you Collectivists who do not recognize the Individual will never stop seeing the world in groups you cannot understand that our rights come to us as individuals and are not subject to whatever category you put us in if you wanna know why racism wont die its because collectivism wont die racism is collectivism
@iamsean90 No. It's the law. A club on a college campus that is using property that is receiving federal funding can not discriminate. "You collectivists? I'm simply quoting the law. So it's now "individuals, is it, who condone discrimination?
@jfsfrnd Individualist promote private property rights that is not segregation Collectivists promote segregation because they see everyone in groups when there is actually one race HUMANS but now i suppose i should sue all these clubs i have know business being in for discriminating right?
@iamsean90 What does the constitution say about private property rights? If everyone agreed that there is "actually one race HUMANS" we wouldn't need civil rights legislation. Sue what clubs?
Rand Paul is the Michael Dukakis of the Right. Remember his debate with George Bush Sr.? He was being his happy, wonkish self, then someone asked him what he'd do if some creep violently raped his wife. His insistence on treating that as a purely theoretical question, killed his candidacy.
@Earth3000AD: Nope, I stand by it. Only way Randy's getting elected by Kentuckians after he sits there and blandly discusses mining disasters like they're hypotheticals, if if something keeps EVERYBODY ELSE except the teabaggers away from the polls on election day.
Rand disagreed with one part of the ten-part Civil Rights Act, and these idiots attempt to do the only thing that media whores like Madoow and Matthews can do -- play the race card. It's ironic that Maddow, that "skilled reporter," receives 80% of her paycheck from General Electric, which creates bombs that are being used to kill women and children in the Middle East. Yet, Rachel and Chris try to appear as genuine, civil rights advocates. Hypocrites.
@mattius83 yeah they are pushing the issue a bit to hard on the guy. I agree. And I don`t think this is going to hurt him at all. But the thing about this issue is that because of that one clause about private property for public use in the legislation may not have caused him to vote against it now, but it would have then. That`s what he seems to be communicating. He`s not being clear here.Thats what is bothering people.
Are people really this dumb? I'm amazed mainstream media is getting way with this smear attacks. Some people are eating this up thinking Paul is a racist. This is just outrages intellectual dishonesty.
Well, I don't like discrimination and try my best not to act that way, but I see Rand Paul's point. Our Constitution is supposed to protect your right to be an asshole. I also see the point that there are still enough assholes to create big problems without some government intervention. Its not an easy issue.
@keithrockerboblewis Asshole is not a word used in the Constitution -- the constitution is more or less a work dedicated to making sure assholes can't ruin our right to be free. The asshole in this whole thing? Rand, for poorly wording his position first of all, and second of all, for framing it in a way that defended extremism.
This issue is a red herring because if you do a search for hispanic, black, asian... organizations, you will get a huge amount of info showing that the portion of the laws they refer to, are not in effect anyways.
It is amazing how easy it is for the left to appeal to emotion and many people just take the bait. Especially Maddow who starts bringing violence into the equation as if it is relevant(he's not proposing to legalize violence).
@Earth3000AD You are right. He actually said "crack a history book" as in crack OPEN a history book. I was making it clear. How you got cracker history book out of that is beyond me..lol
Your business is like your home. You should be able to do business with whom you choose. If people did start segregating their private business then they would be exposed and boycotted, because it is the 21st century and white guilt is way more prevelant than white supremacy. These talking heads are just New World Order puppets attacking an anti-establishment libertarian.
@ShatterNWO No, they would not, the same way they did pretty well before the civil rights movement. There's already a huge crowd of customers (Racists = Tea Baggers = Most Arizonans) that would support those business. The fucking idea that we are discussing this in 2010 is right out of The Twilight Zone. Fucking unreal!
To make his position into an example even you can understand: It would be a better and safer world if everyone who got in a care wore a seatbelt, and everyone who rode a bicycle wore a helmet, however that does not give the government the right to FORCE people to adhere to those safety measures.
The same principle applies to private property: Is it disgusting and morally wrong to not let someone shop in your store if that person is black? Of course it is. Does that give the government the right to FORCE that store owner to sell to anyone who walks in? Of course not.
@meeeece99 yawn... Your example is retarded and simplistic. I dont know how anyone with a brain could compare that to allowing systemic racism to exist. Go away retard.
@btc8128 Greensboros Woolworths store desegregated its lunch counter several months after its sit-in, on July 26, 1960, serving blacks and whites alike, well before the Civil Rights act. What a bullshit argument you shithead
@FixedNewsChannel oh i dont think i missed anything clown boy LOL hmmm what is Palins take on Paul wanting to kill the ADA ??? and why is all the repubs not coming to his side??? cause it is a racist view they didnt have a problem with it 5 yrs ago he is only doing what the tea baggers wants him to do and it is a racist act
He believes it is morally wrong to exclude members of a certain group from your private business, however he believes it is NOT the role of government to enforce morality!!!
Why is this so hard for you small minded muppets to understand????
His rational and logical intellectual presentation is to much for you assholes so you just call him a "racist"!!!
@meeeece99 because its racist to LOL or unless Paul is promoting pro choice ??? tell ya what Paul is just as crazy as his retarded Farther is he is only a puppett for the GOP but it dont matter anyway Paul is done here maybe you should resreach KY news and you will see KY is not happy with what Paul said so i guess our whole state is missing the point its the same hate to say im stupid cause im from KY LOL so you lose (again)
@meeeece99 FYI!!! in case you dont know theres a movment started in KY to stop the christain terroist thats going around threating other ppl just because we dont agree with their views WOW i really hope your not a christain terroist oh my
@meeeece99 Every one knows what Paul is saying. People simply do not agree with you. You sound very angry and like a bully, assuming everyone that disagrees with you is stupid or brainwashed or not as brave as you. How narcissistic. Many, many people simply find it morally and ethically unacceptable that American citizens could be openly treated like sh*t and discriminated against simply for the color of their skin.
@meeeece99 "however he believes it is NOT the role of government to enforce morality!!!"
really? let's make it legal for people to murder, steal, rape, etc, since government should not enforce morality... you don't see any flaws in your argument, do you? and you call us small minded muppets?
@imnodog Many of the people arguing that the Obama administration is trampling on civil liberties are simply just talking about White Supremacy taking a hit.
In this case morality pertains to the offensiveness of the behavior of a private business not the physical harm to others.
The proper roll of government is to prevent force and fraud. Not to control business practices. Murder, theft and rape involve the use of both force and fraud, not allowing white people in your store does not.
@meeeece99 But there is harm in it, physical harm is not a necessity for government to step in. if youre driving through a small town and the only available restaurant does not serve you due to your race, thats harmful to you and your family. If you need gas and the only gas stop does not serve you, thats harmful. let's take harassment as an example, it does not need to be physical in order to break the law, yet it's against the law to harass people (and in for good reasons).
@TimeWarp66 oh i dont think i missed anything clown boy LOL hmmm what is Palins take on Paul wanting to kill the ADA ??? and why is all the repubs not coming to his side??? cause it is a racist view they didnt have a problem with it 5 yrs ago he is only doing what the tea baggers wants him to do and it is a racist act
@TenRoc382k9 Good for you to say this! Rand Paul helped extend the notion that people from his State may accept this thinking. It needs to be demonstrated that this isn't a "Southern" notion. Kudo's from the North.
they want the govt to enforce laws on private businesses to do as they say. but this govt is schizo, wonder if Chris lives next to blacks? Does his kids go to a public school.. These jocks are nothing but hypocrites.. They love to push their agenda, but, they don t practice what they preach
@4567894321 i have and nothen happen but you are a racist theres alot of white ppl that will rape you and kill you so its not just in the ghetto's suck as wall street they rape you everyday but here you are like a reatrd standing up for then and big oil is raping us and you sit on your sorry ass letting them fuck you in the ass LOL
If the private sector is unable to deal with people being able to make their own choice in their business for whichever minorities, that is just a failure of America as a whole...not Rand Paul's viewpoint IMO. I guess the discussion is whether or not the US is ready for it.
Has the culture of America evolved enough for to make that specific part about private business irrelevant?
How do you think gays feel...you can't work here. you can't serve in our army. you can't have the same federal benefits as a male-female couple have etc etc etc... these blowhards continue their discrimination, just on another group. what really sucks is that blacks who once suffered all this discrimination vote against ending discrimination against another minority group
@karlsantos he isnt saying people will behave well without regulation he is saying that people deserve the freedom to behave badly. is that so hard to understand?
6:33 "You & I & David would probably agree. We support th first amendment in it PURITY. That a person can say terrible things in ths country but he has a right or she has a right to do it, becaus we believe thats th only way to protect everyone's right." THEY AGREE WITH THIS CONTITUTIONAL ISSUE. What issue? That EVERYONE's right, all rights, should be protected equally. Pickin apart any right,such as 1st or 4th amendment, to be IGNORED weakens all the other rights & thats whats happened for yrs!
shawso7 1 month ago
Rand Paul is a douche.Just like his dad.And you morons that think Ron Paul is some "freedom fighter" are just so clueless its sad.Name ONE bill Ron has introduced or helped to push thru Congress in all the 11 terms he was a congressman-----Yeah,I'll wait.Good luck.
brianbela 1 month ago
Statements made at 5:30 & 6:31 closes the case. Rand or Ron Paul are not racism.
shawso7 2 months ago
2:52 "Seems to sympathize with the goal of the segregation" "when asked if you support the BASIC work for which Martin Luther King fought & died" What a bunch deaf dumb shits! In both clips he made clear 0:21 "I like the civil rights act in the since that it ended discrimination in all public, ahh, domains & I'm all in favor of that." 0:39 "I abhor racism" HE LIKES THE END OF DISCRIMINATION, ABHORS RACISM? DOESNT SOUND LIKE A RACIST TO ME! Sounds like Race Leeches starting shit for politics.
shawso7 2 months ago
This moron (the black one) is a dumb ass. "Rewrite supreme court rulings"? "Get closer to the mainstream"? Supreme court ruled in favor of slavery at one time you fucking moron! It had to be overturned. "Duh, I dont know. I guess if the supreme court says so we shouldnt ever rehash this issue. Duh." The MAJORITY of the 1964 civil rights law was absolutely necessary, but the government ultimately crossed the line. Taking advantage of the situation inorder to grab more power over personal property
shawso7 4 months ago
Rand, like his father Ron, hates racism AND loves the constitution. Their position is a constitutional one, not a racist one. History shows foreign countries & certain northern states within the US achieved equal rights & treatment for blacks & other minorities long before the civil rights act of 1964. Up to 120 yrs ahead. To say equality would never have been achieved without it is stupid. And to say passing that law has already achieved equality is even more retarded! STOP RACIAL SENSITIVITY!
shawso7 4 months ago
@shawso7 doesnt matter---the end result of Rand and Rons position is that private business owners who are RACIST would be able to deny people of color or anyone else they didnt like acess to their businesses. Sorry,but this is one reason why Libertarian ideas are such a gigantic FAIL.
brianbela 1 month ago
this piece of shit is nuts let all companys do what they what like lead in paint no seat belts in cars no breaks for employees are you fucking kidding me those fucks that voted for him have no fucken brains
billyjoelmartin 9 months ago
Well, Rand Paul's ploy worked; he appealed to the racists in saying he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act forcing whites to serve blacks.... and he got voted in.
So, unpopular viewpoint? Doesn't matter! If you have enough bigots in your state, you'll STILL get elected!
Nice going, Rand, you little weasel.
And he's in the Senate now....
MaskedMarvyl 9 months ago
Matthews is lumping all Tea Partiers together like we are all just robots without minds of our own and without individual viewpoints. That low. For the record, I disagree with Rand Paul on this issue. But, he is not indicative of all Tea Partiers.
rickschtick 11 months ago
@rickschtick well then he & his father need to be more outspoken about this since he has no problem showing up at Tea Party rallies where the political leaders/faces of the Tea Party have been Palin & Michelle Bachmann,
by associating himself with them & their extreme views and ridiculous beliefs, you cant call Matthews out for lumping teabaggers together when the right has had no problem lumping liberals together and labeling them all socialists for supporting Obama's healthcare & such
theiveslikeus 9 months ago
@theiveslikeus, you're stupid. You obviously condone dishonest debates and say it's fair game because others are doing it.
rickschtick 9 months ago
@theiveslikeus ron paul started the tea party movement 20 years ago but the neoconservatives are trying to hijack it
hitlerscow 9 months ago 2
I am white, I am not a racist. I am not disabled. I think that if I run a store and I do not want red, yellow, or black folks in there, it is my business. I want everyone in there. I am in business to make money, and I want all people to come in and enjoy my business and spend their money. That is just good business. Do I think government should involved. I do not.
thekingswaterboy 1 year ago 2
I agree with Mathews.
Gay bars should be forced to serve members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
CRAPCANNONS 1 year ago 2
fucking guy pisses me off, chirs matthews doesnt deserve to be on tv, i would love to see this guy directly against rand i love how hes putting rand down with out him even being there what a douche
spatz2269 1 year ago
He does have a problem.......he's intelligent.
TheWhiteRabbit1990 1 year ago 2
I went to a Taco truck in my hood of East L.A. bout a month ago. They refused to sell to me.. latino only. It's a very latin neighborhood, and I was sort of put off by the whole thing... Like, "racist fucks... screw you guys". And I still do think that. BUT, they have the right to sell their products to whomever they want. It's their stupid taco truck and it's their food on the truck. IT'S THEIRS... NOT MINE. I don't get to tell them what to do with it. NOR THE GOV!
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , no they don't have the right. They are breaking the law.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 MORON: the whole discussion is whether it should be against the law or not. My point is: the mexicans refused to sell to me and that SHOULD be their right. I don't give a shit what the law says... if I own something THEN I GET TO CHOOSE WHO, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, AND HOW I SELL IT. I OWN IT!!!! LET ME REPEAT THAT: I OWN IT. I'll sell my shit to whoever I fucking want. bottom line.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , wow, a real live temper tantrum comment!
So by your logic any law that I disagree with, I should be able to break on the grounds, I don't like that law.
I don't like driving laws, I should be able to drive as fast as I want, drive in people's yards, whatever.
Doesn't make much sense does it, if we all do what we want, society or should I say civilized society, would come to a standstill.
Temper tantrums are not so cool.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : You're reading what I said the wrong way: I already said below that the discussion is what the law SHOULD be. My point about not caring what the law says simply meant: there's lots of laws that are BS and are not constitutionally sound. Like telling a person who they can and cannot sell their assets to. Just like in a restaurant that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , the reason it is legal for a restaurant to have a sign about refusing service isn't to discriminate by race or sex. It is in consideration for the other patrons. If someone comes in to eat that has really bad b.o. or filthy clothes from working, the restaurant can refuse service, as it would make the other diners eating experience unpleasant. And the restaurant doesn't want to lose any customers. Almost universally the public doesn't want to eat with unpleasant smells around.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : but you're missing the point: so who decides what is worthy of being "refused service".... So what if my military troupe had a tradition where we didn't wash our socks for weeks before war? what if it was a muslim and I felt strongly about christianity... could I refuse service to the muslim? What if I just felt lazy that day and didn't want to open my store? would that be against the law because i'd be refusing people of all races and religions? where do you draw the line?
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , I'm sure there are rules on the books that limit it to bad public hygiene, intoxication or extremely loud behavior. They aren't allowed to refuse service on a whim or personal dislike.
As for not opening a store if you felt lazy, of course that is your perogative. You wouldn't be discriminating, since you wouldn't be serving anyone.
That's where you draw the line.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : personally I don't think if some dumb ass refuses service to a black guy is really that big of a deal. Yes he's a racist idiot that will lose out on business. But I really don't think it should be against the law. I guess we just disagree.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , I don't know if you would disagree if you read your history. Before the Civil Rights Amendment, any business could discriminate. That included hospitals, doctors, ambulance services and pharmacies. It killed people, since time is of the essence when seriously ill or injured. Don't be fooled by racist people saying it wouldn't matter if businesses would discriminate, it would not only 'inconvenience' but humilate, divide and even kill.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : you're living in a different area. Try to find me a hospital with only white employees let alone one that would ever turn someone down due to their race. Even besides the law, you have to be joking if you think a hospital would ever turn down someone because of race. You live in a different era. What if 100 racist doctors started businesses? there's still the same ammount of non racist doctors. So it doesn't hurt, if anything it helps because they do accept some people.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , there are plenty of areas in our country where there is only one small hospital, so if that hospital were allowed to discriminate, it could kill. Before the CRA people of color did die because they were turned away by hospitals, ambulance services, doctors and pharmacies.
The reason things are better now is because of the Civil Rights Act.
A doctor pledges to preserve human life, so the very idea of being racist disqualifies them from taking that pledge.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : the racist hospital would never survive... a non racist hosp. would come into the area and get just as much business or more from not being racist... there's money to be made.. simple economics. Besides that, my main point is: you can't force people to love, force people to not hate. I believe in freedom you believe in force. And on top of that, force normally doesn't work. Economics works itself out. You're not only naive, you think force is the answer... too bad really.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , most areas that could support two hospitals would already have one. New hospitals wouldn't just pop up.
No one is talking about forcing people to love or hate, simply to respect everyone as your equals.
Economics doesn't just 'work itself out', Without regs. the greediest end of screwing a lot of good people, and eventually things get so bad the country fails. Read your history!
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : I have read my history: Historically the free-est times are also the most prosperous: Like america becoming the worlds economic leader in the 1800's and early 1900's. Modern day japan. Modern day china who are economically very free and have become a world powerhouse. I think YOU need to read your history.
2nd: if there's black people being refused at a hospital, that leaves incentive for a nonracist doctor to want to move into the area... because there's money to be made! DUH
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid, comparing China's prosperity to their lack of regs. discounts the enormous harm done to their environment and thus their people. I know people who have travelled there over the last 20 years. They tell me the cities are so polluted it is difficult to breathe. Weak regulations just passes the true costs to others whether it is a family who loses their breadwinner or a child from contaminated milk. Look at their lax regs...cont.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@freezazoid , your example of a racist hospital leaving opportunity for a non-racist hospital to open misses completely the harm done to those who needed a hospital but were denied service. Larger number of dead and permanent injuries until and if a non-racist hospital opened or a further distant hospital was reached is too great a price.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : my point many comments below is actually really good: So what if I just decided to close down for the day and refuse service to everyone? I'd be discriminating against ALL races and religions!!! No one gets service... but if I were to do it JUST based upon race that's suddenly against the law? Point is: shutting down racist business' entirely is like them taking the day off forever... so now we don't have that business at ALL and it leaves no competition for the other guy
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , and how that allowed schools to have 2nd, 3rd stories added to a building only designed to be one floor. And then the disaster when a earthquake leveled those schools.
Little or no regulation isn't civilized, it isn't protecting the people which is a government's sworn duty to do. Enemies aren't just invading armies but greedy business owners who will put profit before the safety of their workers and their customers.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : please! the government is no smarter... if anything less smarter than any private company who could lose clients to competition. The FDA constantly releases drugs that are dangerous... good example: viagra was released and FDA approved for some other condition that it did nothing for. When the company tried to recall the drugs because they didn't work, they found people not sending them back because they could F all night long! The gov has a long list of fuck ups!
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid, to compare the few dozen mistakes with the thousands of bad drugs it kept off the market doesn't make sense.
The FDA hasn't kept every harmful drug off the market, true, but show me any business that hasn't made mistakes or had recalls.
On the whole the FDA has prevented a lot of harm.
Your viagra story sounds false. But if it is true, and people willfully decided not to send back a recalled drug, that is their fault, not the FDA's.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@freezazoid , your remark that the government isn't smarter than private business, since the company wouldn't want to lose clients is misguided. In reality, the business doesn't want to lose customers so frequently withholds the harm their product is doing.
Think of the cigarette companies lying about their products causing cancer. More recently, think of the many drug companies that hid proof their drugs injured consumers. The rational of these execs is simple, make the money and run.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@freezazoid , I do think the FDA needs to improve its results. All drugs should have independent lab studies, longer human studies, before it is okayed for use.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : that's part of the problem too though: the fda takes way too long on certain drugs that are available in other countries already and working!! Without an FDA you'd think it would be disasterous! but it's not.... Companies would disapear in a second if they released a bad drug.... lawsuits and loss of trust would put them under. Besides that: just be wary of new drugs... let the risk takers test them out. The FDA is unnecessary.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , I don't know why you think companies would disappear in a second if they released a bad drug, this happens all the time and the companies go on.
I do agree that Europe has drugs for many years before they get approval here. I don't think it is that our FDA is slow as much as our pharma companies aren't interested in marketing what they don't have a patent for.
I'm glad that our govt. is going to review which drugs/treatments actually work best so our docs can prescribe winners.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : but why the gov. do the reviewing? do they have special powers that a private reviewing company couldn't do. Consumer Reports although it does not review drugs of course has a fantastic rep to uphold.... If a business like that were to review drugs they'd have everything to lose if they messed up... do you really think the FDA cares if they mess up? sure they don't want it... but they're a forced monopoly... they wont go down if there's a mess up. a priv. reviewer would.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , the only way Consumer Reports is funded is by its members who want to know the best washer, car, etc.
Do you really expect the consumer to pay a private company to review drugs? And in your scenario if they make a bad call, get sued and go out of business, there very well may be no other company to step in and take there place. Then big pharma has no check on their product, in your scenario.
Plus, idea is to not let the bad ones on the market in the first place.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : your argument is: The consumer is willing to pay for reviews on dishwashers but not willing to pay for reviews on drugs they put in their bodies? I don't really get your point there. 2nd: making a bad call and going out of business is a threat the FDA DOESN'T have to deal with. Private companies would take more care to not make mistakes so they DON'T loose their business. The FDA can make many mistakes and nothing will happen. After all my good points you STILL don't get it.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , my argument is saying consumers don't have enough money to pay for an independent review on everything they buy. Take the subject of prescription drugs, many of them are for 'orphan' diseases, meaning very few people have them.
The consumer reports for drugs would never have the money to research every drug, they would only do the most popular, just like the real Consumer Reports only checks out the most popular manufactured goods.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@freezazoid , and you point about a business making a bad call and going out of business, that doesn't much happen in the real world.
The same people just start up another business under a different name. It happens all the time to small companies who are sued.
When the FDA makes mistakes, people there lose their jobs or are demoted, just like at most companies. For the large amount they have oversight on, they do a pretty good job. Yes, they could do better, just like all of us.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
(continued) so according to you: when a business fails they somehow don't learn their lesson and have an endless supply of money to start more crazy companies to screw people over? Is that right? Because business' after they fail generally have lots of debt and legal troubles! Private business' aren't in the market to fail... they want to make money, and doing a damn good job gets them money. FDA gets the money anyway. Understand?
freezazoid 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : So when the FDA makes a big mistake, maybe someone will get fired? WOW big deal. And after that the FDA does business as usual. "Topps Meat" recently went out of business from an e. coli spread... If the same owner goes back into business do you think he's going to try harder? YES! he's going to try and avoid dealing with legal hassle and financial hassle that he had to go through the first time... (continued below)
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , look at how many harmful prescription drugs were sold but no pharma company went out of business. Did the tobacco companies go out of business when the courts found tobacco did kill people and the companies willfully withheld the evidence, and lied to the public? Of course they didn't.
These big corporations have very deep pockets.
The government is charged with protecting us, not just from foreign enemies but from greed and corruption.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 , people shouldn't have to be harmed or killed for a company to straighten up. The giant egg factory owner in the news lately, do you think that he didn't know that buildings ripe with bugs and rats would contaminate? He probably just decided to 'cut costs' by cutting employees and trash hauler costs to make more money.
Little or big, companies can have bosses or owners who are greedy enough to take shortcuts that people in danger. Govt. regs. make sure they will pay for it.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : It's insane to think that: The government (who are just people) will do a better job than a private business.
The gov. has no threat of loosing their jobs or any other business competing with them, and you think they'll do a better job at a given task than a private company who DOES have a threat of job loss and competition? When did the gov. become such saints? you think the gov. can't be greedy? hahaha... I guess we just disagree my friend. Nice chatting with you.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , I would think it equally naive to assume that a private business will do a better job. There are so many news stories where the owner or manager tries to greedily squeeze more profits by not following safety measures(BP and the oil spll) or using contaminated ingredients(deliberately chemical-contaminated milk, even though the guilty parties know the death penalty is prevalent there) or cutting back on workers (filthy egg factories egg's sicken 1600 folks) cont.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@freezazoid , cont. sure govt. employees can take bribes to let private companies do bad stuff but that is the exception. And each agency has an internal checking department.
Most employees don't want to chance losing their pension, so that is a strong deterrent for most.
You talk of the govt. as if it is one company, when it is a whole network of separately managed entities, some which are headed by presidential appointees, some not.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 : check out John Stossel's "Stupid in America". If you don't think government interference makes things worse after that... then I guess we just disagree at a really basic level.
I'm pro choice and pro freedom... you think that a group of people should make choices for us and not let us be free to choose. Check out stossel... seriously it's really good.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid , as I've said before, Stossel isn't a journalist, he relies on anecdotal evidence.
I watched a little of his video but it had technical diff.
If you really are pro choice and pro freedom, you would support the Dems, not the Repubs. Repubs support big corporations, which just like the bad guy in 'It's a Wonderful Life', are interested in profits and limiting choices.
On the education problem in our country, I think it is less govt. influence, as we've had (cont.)
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@freezazoid , we've had Dem and Rep. leaders the last 30 years that our education system has gone downhill, neither helped.
It is more the reliance on 'experts' that screw things up. The old way of teaching, memorization, rote learning was deemed too 'boring. But that is how you get good at stuff, doing it again and again, especially math, reading and writing.
I kid you not my kids were taught 3 different ways to multiply. Each was glossed over, leaving them confused. (cont.)
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@freezazoid , (cont.) Their dad and I taught them the 'old-fashioned' way to multiply, memorizing the times table endlessly, then long multiplication and division the way it had been taught for decades. All three kids excelled in math after that.
Same problem with reading. Some schools gloss over phonetics and then a percentage of kids have trouble learning to read. My niece was almost one of their 'victims' who felt dumb at 6. A few hours of phonetics, and she 'got' it and her esteem soared.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@freezazoid , if a business decides to close down for a day, they simply make their customers wait until the next business day, as many do who close on Sundays.
Are you advocating that every business should never have a holiday?
No one is forcing a racist business to shut down. They can follow the rules or they can re-open as a club with memberships and stay racist.
Would you argue that we shouldn't shut down a business that breaks any laws? What if a business cheats customers repeatedly?
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"you have the right to poop in other peoples porcelin bowl...what article\section was that in the constitution again? I have the right to make you pay for my doctor visits, my education, my home loan, my food bill, my retirement & my cellphone. God Bless the U.S.S.A." hehehe
lancekosty 1 year ago
Rand Paul is not a true libertarian like his father
RhysIII 1 year ago
I've tried to comment butit doesn't get through. I'll rephrase my question. Do bars that are for women, have the right to intimidate men who want to be there?
nogov4me 1 year ago
Are men welcome in "womens bars"? Or welcome in "women's music" concerts?
nogov4me 1 year ago 2
Are men welcomed in lesbian bars or "women's music" concerts?
nogov4me 1 year ago
Are men welcome in lesbian bars or "women's music" concerts?
nogov4me 1 year ago
you have the right to poop in other peoples porcelin bowl...what article\section was that in the constitution again? I have the right to make you pay for my doctor visits, my education, my home loan, my food bill, my retirement & my cellphone. God Bless the U.S.S.A.
happinessisnowhere 1 year ago
stop citing the supreme court decisions. it just makes you look uninformed.
happinessisnowhere 1 year ago
gun rights were core to the rule of law in this country. Without guns and the threat of the people defending themselves there is no way for the people to enforce the constitution and kep the government in check. The supreme court is the federal government. You mean the supreme court tends to support the overreach of the federal government?!? Perish the thought! The supreme courts job is to enforce the constitution, not interpret it and not legislate from the bench.
happinessisnowhere 1 year ago
One of these yahoos mentioned the supreme court interpeting the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was written in english. Not Spanish. Not Russian. Not Chinese. It doesn't need to be interpeted. What it says is what it means.
littlejeffmo 1 year ago
So racism is just "bad business," nothing else?
manderson610 1 year ago
Rand Paul is wrong to equate the rights of private business owners that serve the public with the right to free speech.
If a racist wants to pick and choose their customers they should just keep their business private and not serve the public.
Matthews makes a good point about the humiliation of being denied service because of color. It is asinine to think barring people because of color wouldn't be saying loud and clear that we aren't all equal. That is an un-American idea.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
tea partiers are not all white its not a white issue with rand paul either, these guys are idiots.
jordanchapin 1 year ago
Rand Paul is not a racist watch the whole interview he is merely talking about private property rights watch the whole interview. Think about it if there is a lesbian club like in my college and i who am not only not a lesbian but not even a women want to join can they refuse my membership i think the answer is yes they can say i am not allowed. Rand Paul opposes all Jim Crow laws which was the Govt. segregating and he believe like Jackie Robinson in MLB the private sector will do whats right
iamsean90 1 year ago
@iamsean90 The problem is if someone is supporting Private Companies infringing on the Liberties of it's citizens but NOT the Government doing it. Also he didn't address public Monopoly businesses. Like the Privately Owned Telephone company or electric company.
PoliticalSkeptic 1 year ago
@PoliticalSkeptic Uh im sorry to let you know this if you own a restaurant you have the right to refuse entry and service just like you have the right to refuse entry into your own home they are both private properly now i dont support refusing service based on race etc. but i have to recognize everyone's private property rights However ANY business or institution that receives ONE CENT of public money has no right to discriminate or decline service
iamsean90 1 year ago
@iamsean90, you are not understanding the difference between a private club and a private business that serves the public.
The lesbian club at your college is not open to serve the public. They are allowed to discriminate. Racists can legally start a private club that serves food, for instance, and bar blacks.
A private business like a restaurant, a gas station, a laundromat, a medical clinic etc. that serves the public is not allowed to discriminate.
Do you understand the difference?
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 Look you dont understand basic principles Person A can refuse to sell or accept person B's money its that simple Private property is to be considered as a home the owner of that property can determine who may or not enter that property you do not have a right to service you can negotiate for it but in a free society goods an services can only be exchanged with willing and voluntary consent from both parties My main problem with these Rand Paul attacks is the sheer malice involved
iamsean90 1 year ago 2
@sophiemarie49 what.. what is your criteria for what businesses "serve the public" and which don't? You seem to be arbitrarily picking and choosing. You also seem to think that because something IS a certain way that it OUGHT to be that way, which is illogical.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment, the legal criteria, not mine, is a business open to serving the general public, i.e. not requiring membership to enter.
The Civil Rights law is logical, because segregation harmed people. Racists like Rand always use the innocent restaurant scenario, knowing full well ambualance services, doctor's offices, pharmacies and even hospitals refused service. This killed Americans.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 Cars killed americans (not that dead americans are any more compelling dead other dead people) with accidents. Therefor make cars illegal? If you replace the 'racism' with 'x' you might see that your argument makes no sense.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment, we have a ton of legislation to make driving safer, from testing to get a license, to laws on how to drive, such as speed limits, etc. The laws make it safe to drive, if everyone follows them, barring accidents cause by falling trees, tire or auto failure or driver failure, as in sudden illness. We don't say, oh, cars are still killing people, let's do away with all laws governing driving.
People are equal in this country. Racists who don't believe this can move.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 Please try to understand instead of resorting to straw-man arguments.. (it makes you look stupid =[ )
NO ONE thinks that people in the country are unequal or shouldn't have equal rights.. what we think is that you have no idea what a 'right' is.. if you were consistent in your 'rights' we wouldn't be surprised to hear you argue that "legal prostitutes should not be allowed to discriminate against age, race, weight, or size of penis".
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment , if people are truly equal here, they should be free to get services from any business open to the public. No one should have to be humiliated and turned away because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation.
Personally I don't think prostitution should be legal and it isn't legal in very many places, thank goodness. It does say something about you that your mind jumped to that subject when we are discussing equal rights....
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 The places in the world with the least accidents have the least regulations... In fact all the statistics, even in the states, show that removing regulations, such as removing stop lights and/or stop signs, increasing speed limits, etc for an intersection has the effect of DECREASING accidents.
I know it all seems counter intuitive from inside your box, but there is an underlying theory that explains why legislation intended to improve X by restricting Y has an inverse effect.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment, the idea that stop lights and/or stop signs cause accidents is crazy. And there is so much evidence that higher speeds cause fatalities.
I don't know where you do your research but perhaps the places with the least regs have the least accidents because they have a lot less cars and traffic?
I haven't insulted you or anyone else, why do you feel free to insult? I look at these comments sites as a place to learn and share ideas, not to denigrate other commenters.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 lol.. you insulted me indirectly.. hard to find more obvious examples than implying that I'm racist or that because I think prostitution should be legal it 'says something' about me.. lol. All your arguments are interesting for grade 7, but would not be accepted at any serious level... That you want prostitution to be illegal says enough about you that there's no point in arguing about freedom with you.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment , :)
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 safe to assume you want pornography to be banned, and believe that jesus saves.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment , no, but I do think that how you live your life is how you will be judged at the end of it, not if you went to church every Sunday, or belonged to the 'right' religion.
As for pornography, those guys I know who were into that, didn't seem to be able to think of women except as objects. And those that did mature and start to see women as people, stopped buying porn.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 You make a lot of claims jam-packed with pre-suppositions. Go watch thepeach's video on prostitution and pornography... Whatever you think you know, you don't. Not much else in the universe quite as clear as that.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment , right back at you, whatever you think you know, you don't.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 Sex is legal.. selling services is legal.. why shouldn't selling sex be legal? Cause it's yucky to your personal preference? Might as well fight gay and lesbian equality. I'm consistent, you aren't, you lose. There's nothing else to talk about...
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment , ??? Consistency isn't your strong point if you've jumped from civil rights and discrimination to legalizing prostitution.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 lol. Cause how those could all be related by the same principle is beyond you, means it's beyond the rest of the world, amiright?
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment , if you are having a conversation with me, but can't explain your points, that isn't a reflection on me, but on you.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 The point was that your point was unjustified. Then my point was that you missed the point. Now it's that it's beyond you. Can't be more forthcoming =(
newexperiment 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 and calling rand a racist just shows how ignorant you are.
newexperiment 1 year ago
". . .if there is a lesbian club like in my college and i who am not only not a lesbian but not even a women want to join can they refuse my membership . . ."
No they can't if your college receives even one dollar of federal funds. If they are a private club off campus they can refuse your memership.
jfsfrnd 1 year ago
@jfsfrnd Wrong if the Club itself receives public money than it shouldn't be exclusionary College students like all Americans have freedom of association but this debate is irrelevant you Collectivists who do not recognize the Individual will never stop seeing the world in groups you cannot understand that our rights come to us as individuals and are not subject to whatever category you put us in if you wanna know why racism wont die its because collectivism wont die racism is collectivism
iamsean90 1 year ago
@iamsean90 No. It's the law. A club on a college campus that is using property that is receiving federal funding can not discriminate. "You collectivists? I'm simply quoting the law. So it's now "individuals, is it, who condone discrimination?
jfsfrnd 1 year ago
@jfsfrnd Individualist promote private property rights that is not segregation Collectivists promote segregation because they see everyone in groups when there is actually one race HUMANS but now i suppose i should sue all these clubs i have know business being in for discriminating right?
iamsean90 1 year ago
@iamsean90 What does the constitution say about private property rights? If everyone agreed that there is "actually one race HUMANS" we wouldn't need civil rights legislation. Sue what clubs?
jfsfrnd 1 year ago
@jfsfrnd you have confused "how things are" and "how things ought to be".
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment How have I done that? Explain in detail please.
jfsfrnd 1 year ago
my bad fixed wrong comment LOL
TenRoc382k9 1 year ago
Rand Paul is the Michael Dukakis of the Right. Remember his debate with George Bush Sr.? He was being his happy, wonkish self, then someone asked him what he'd do if some creep violently raped his wife. His insistence on treating that as a purely theoretical question, killed his candidacy.
This one is a candidacy-killer too.
Wendy62 1 year ago
@Wendy62 what a load of rubbish
Earth3000AD 1 year ago
@Earth3000AD: Nope, I stand by it. Only way Randy's getting elected by Kentuckians after he sits there and blandly discusses mining disasters like they're hypotheticals, if if something keeps EVERYBODY ELSE except the teabaggers away from the polls on election day.
Wendy62 1 year ago
"A freshman dormroom conversation" hahahhaha
delreydavid 1 year ago
Rand disagreed with one part of the ten-part Civil Rights Act, and these idiots attempt to do the only thing that media whores like Madoow and Matthews can do -- play the race card. It's ironic that Maddow, that "skilled reporter," receives 80% of her paycheck from General Electric, which creates bombs that are being used to kill women and children in the Middle East. Yet, Rachel and Chris try to appear as genuine, civil rights advocates. Hypocrites.
mattius83 1 year ago
@mattius83 yeah they are pushing the issue a bit to hard on the guy. I agree. And I don`t think this is going to hurt him at all. But the thing about this issue is that because of that one clause about private property for public use in the legislation may not have caused him to vote against it now, but it would have then. That`s what he seems to be communicating. He`s not being clear here.Thats what is bothering people.
inuhgungju 1 year ago
I too am against discrimination in all forms.
I do see the point that Rand Paul is trying to get at.
He is just trying to be specific about the constitution.
and in the process of doing so, his vague words has let him to be labeled as Anti-civil rights.
Even though he is just trying to point out that 1 part out of 10 in the civil rights act, he says that it would be a conflicting issue.
Please understand, it's not like he's going to repeal it or anything, he's just trying to be consistent.
Pv8man 1 year ago
Are people really this dumb? I'm amazed mainstream media is getting way with this smear attacks. Some people are eating this up thinking Paul is a racist. This is just outrages intellectual dishonesty.
saper321 1 year ago
The government should control everything. We'd be safer that way. The only way to make that statement better would be to say it in German:
Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles.
Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles.
lawlessone03 1 year ago 2
This is the wooden stake in the heart(less) TeaBaggers
sage0857 1 year ago
Kentucky is a "bit" to the right? Chris, go to Kentucky, it isn't a bit anything, it IS the right
Craigipedia 1 year ago
Well, I don't like discrimination and try my best not to act that way, but I see Rand Paul's point. Our Constitution is supposed to protect your right to be an asshole. I also see the point that there are still enough assholes to create big problems without some government intervention. Its not an easy issue.
keithrockerboblewis 1 year ago
@keithrockerboblewis Asshole is not a word used in the Constitution -- the constitution is more or less a work dedicated to making sure assholes can't ruin our right to be free. The asshole in this whole thing? Rand, for poorly wording his position first of all, and second of all, for framing it in a way that defended extremism.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
This issue is a red herring because if you do a search for hispanic, black, asian... organizations, you will get a huge amount of info showing that the portion of the laws they refer to, are not in effect anyways.
It is amazing how easy it is for the left to appeal to emotion and many people just take the bait. Especially Maddow who starts bringing violence into the equation as if it is relevant(he's not proposing to legalize violence).
KendrickJ2 1 year ago
The only rasict part of this entire issue I have seen thus far is from 7:00 to 7:10. "The guy has got a cracker history book"
Earth3000AD 1 year ago 2
@Earth3000AD NO. He said "crack open a history book" Don't make up stuff.
WitchygirrlR 1 year ago
@WitchygirrlR where do you here the word "open" you just inserted a word that you made up...
Earth3000AD 1 year ago
@Earth3000AD You are right. He actually said "crack a history book" as in crack OPEN a history book. I was making it clear. How you got cracker history book out of that is beyond me..lol
WitchygirrlR 1 year ago
At the end of the day, Rand Paul needs to decide how he'd like others to view Americans.
2484Stryker 1 year ago
Your business is like your home. You should be able to do business with whom you choose. If people did start segregating their private business then they would be exposed and boycotted, because it is the 21st century and white guilt is way more prevelant than white supremacy. These talking heads are just New World Order puppets attacking an anti-establishment libertarian.
ShatterNWO 1 year ago 2
@ShatterNWO No, they would not, the same way they did pretty well before the civil rights movement. There's already a huge crowd of customers (Racists = Tea Baggers = Most Arizonans) that would support those business. The fucking idea that we are discussing this in 2010 is right out of The Twilight Zone. Fucking unreal!
viniciusb 1 year ago
If every restaurant in town banned black people, the first one that didn't would make a lot of money.
Free market FTW.
Garmichael1 1 year ago
Chris Matthews is a fucking dumbass.
meeeece99 1 year ago
Rand doesnt stand a chance this fall. Never mind his obvious bigotry, if he would have been a democrat he would have placed third in the primary.
btc8128 1 year ago
Obvious bigotry my ass.
To make his position into an example even you can understand: It would be a better and safer world if everyone who got in a care wore a seatbelt, and everyone who rode a bicycle wore a helmet, however that does not give the government the right to FORCE people to adhere to those safety measures.
meeeece99 1 year ago
Part 2
The same principle applies to private property: Is it disgusting and morally wrong to not let someone shop in your store if that person is black? Of course it is. Does that give the government the right to FORCE that store owner to sell to anyone who walks in? Of course not.
meeeece99 1 year ago 2
@meeeece99 yawn... Your example is retarded and simplistic. I dont know how anyone with a brain could compare that to allowing systemic racism to exist. Go away retard.
btc8128 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@btc8128 Greensboros Woolworths store desegregated its lunch counter several months after its sit-in, on July 26, 1960, serving blacks and whites alike, well before the Civil Rights act. What a bullshit argument you shithead
savemyplaylist 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rand Paul is done we dont treat people that way here in KY
TenRoc382k9 1 year ago
@TenRoc382k9 I've met a lot of good folks on here, from Kentucky.
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago
@FixedNewsChannel oh i dont think i missed anything clown boy LOL hmmm what is Palins take on Paul wanting to kill the ADA ??? and why is all the repubs not coming to his side??? cause it is a racist view they didnt have a problem with it 5 yrs ago he is only doing what the tea baggers wants him to do and it is a racist act
TenRoc382k9 1 year ago
@TenRoc382k9
Neither does Rand Paul!
You missed the point entirely!
He believes it is morally wrong to exclude members of a certain group from your private business, however he believes it is NOT the role of government to enforce morality!!!
Why is this so hard for you small minded muppets to understand????
His rational and logical intellectual presentation is to much for you assholes so you just call him a "racist"!!!
meeeece99 1 year ago
@meeeece99 because its racist to LOL or unless Paul is promoting pro choice ??? tell ya what Paul is just as crazy as his retarded Farther is he is only a puppett for the GOP but it dont matter anyway Paul is done here maybe you should resreach KY news and you will see KY is not happy with what Paul said so i guess our whole state is missing the point its the same hate to say im stupid cause im from KY LOL so you lose (again)
TenRoc382k9 1 year ago
@meeeece99 FYI!!! in case you dont know theres a movment started in KY to stop the christain terroist thats going around threating other ppl just because we dont agree with their views WOW i really hope your not a christain terroist oh my
TenRoc382k9 1 year ago
@meeeece99 Every one knows what Paul is saying. People simply do not agree with you. You sound very angry and like a bully, assuming everyone that disagrees with you is stupid or brainwashed or not as brave as you. How narcissistic. Many, many people simply find it morally and ethically unacceptable that American citizens could be openly treated like sh*t and discriminated against simply for the color of their skin.
ActaNonVerba71 1 year ago
@meeeece99 "however he believes it is NOT the role of government to enforce morality!!!"
really? let's make it legal for people to murder, steal, rape, etc, since government should not enforce morality... you don't see any flaws in your argument, do you? and you call us small minded muppets?
imnodog 1 year ago
@imnodog Many of the people arguing that the Obama administration is trampling on civil liberties are simply just talking about White Supremacy taking a hit.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@imnodog
In this case morality pertains to the offensiveness of the behavior of a private business not the physical harm to others.
The proper roll of government is to prevent force and fraud. Not to control business practices. Murder, theft and rape involve the use of both force and fraud, not allowing white people in your store does not.
meeeece99 1 year ago
@meeeece99 But there is harm in it, physical harm is not a necessity for government to step in. if youre driving through a small town and the only available restaurant does not serve you due to your race, thats harmful to you and your family. If you need gas and the only gas stop does not serve you, thats harmful. let's take harassment as an example, it does not need to be physical in order to break the law, yet it's against the law to harass people (and in for good reasons).
imnodog 1 year ago
@TenRoc382k9
What way? You clearly missed Rand Paul's point about private property vs his own hatred of racism.
And if Rand Paul is "done" why is he 20 points ahead in the polls right now????
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimeWarp66 oh i dont think i missed anything clown boy LOL hmmm what is Palins take on Paul wanting to kill the ADA ??? and why is all the repubs not coming to his side??? cause it is a racist view they didnt have a problem with it 5 yrs ago he is only doing what the tea baggers wants him to do and it is a racist act
TenRoc382k9 1 year ago
@TenRoc382k9 Good for you to say this! Rand Paul helped extend the notion that people from his State may accept this thinking. It needs to be demonstrated that this isn't a "Southern" notion. Kudo's from the North.
scottmotown 1 year ago
@TenRoc382k9 Rachell, why dont u go take a walk into the ghettos and allow the drug addicts feel u up
4567894321 1 year ago
they want the govt to enforce laws on private businesses to do as they say. but this govt is schizo, wonder if Chris lives next to blacks? Does his kids go to a public school.. These jocks are nothing but hypocrites.. They love to push their agenda, but, they don t practice what they preach
4567894321 1 year ago
@4567894321 i have and nothen happen but you are a racist theres alot of white ppl that will rape you and kill you so its not just in the ghetto's suck as wall street they rape you everyday but here you are like a reatrd standing up for then and big oil is raping us and you sit on your sorry ass letting them fuck you in the ass LOL
TenRoc382k9 1 year ago
I wonder if msnbc gets talking points? As every single show haD the same point of veiw on this.
thechild84 1 year ago
If the private sector is unable to deal with people being able to make their own choice in their business for whichever minorities, that is just a failure of America as a whole...not Rand Paul's viewpoint IMO. I guess the discussion is whether or not the US is ready for it.
Has the culture of America evolved enough for to make that specific part about private business irrelevant?
Very worthy of discussion.
kardentyrell 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron & Rand in 2012!
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
- Thomas Paine
RevolutionNewz 1 year ago
How do you think gays feel...you can't work here. you can't serve in our army. you can't have the same federal benefits as a male-female couple have etc etc etc... these blowhards continue their discrimination, just on another group. what really sucks is that blacks who once suffered all this discrimination vote against ending discrimination against another minority group
beachbumde 1 year ago
I think is just idealistic and naive.
He apparently thinks that everyone behaves well without being forced to do it.
Without rules regulations and laws we are just well dressed cavemen: some of us are well mannered and well behaved, others not so much.
karlsantos 1 year ago
@karlsantos he isnt saying people will behave well without regulation he is saying that people deserve the freedom to behave badly. is that so hard to understand?
CarbonSuit 1 year ago
The teabbagers are nothing else but the KKK in a new disguise.
Francebrasil 1 year ago
Libertarians are simply anti-social nuts.
sparrow111260 1 year ago
@sparrow111260 that's true.. look where libertardians get their "philosophy":
tinyurl . com / yhr6pbm
KataVideo 1 year ago
Rand Paul and the tea baggers are enemies of humanity, and should be treated as such
clownporn1 1 year ago 2
none of them can deny that those business owners forced to integrate are less free,
CarbonSuit 1 year ago